Evaluating PDPs

Introduction

The PDP is a tool to learning and not all people will use this tool in the same way.

  • Some will complete a full cycle of learning within a single log diary entry whilst others indicate a learning need, log the need on their PDP and later complete to cycle with a further entry.
  • Some will look at broad sweeps naturally ( “Aims”) whilst others look at concrete details more easily (“Objectives”).
  • Both Aims and Objectives are important and it is appropriate to develop the skills in working with both of them.

It is important however for there to be some reference standard to support trainees in writing and using PDPs, and help Educational and Clinical Supervisors as well as ARCP panel whencommenting on them.

Writing appropriate PDPs is particularlyimportant as the PDP is seen as a crucial part of re-validation and re- certification. The e portfolio process supports trainees to develop approaches to PDP which will support their onward learning.

It is likely that there will be a development of skills in writing and using PDPs that will develop through ST1 until the end of formal training and beyond. These guidelines on evaluation should be used with this in mind.

Proposed criteria and reasoning

  • Reflections on the post for future learning

There should be new PDP entries relating to each post on the rotation entered at around the start of the posts.

It is appropriate to reflect on the learning opportunities of the post and identify areas that can be addressed in the post at around the start of the post. This is a skill that trained GPs have to use for their annual appraisals.

  • Knowledge, Skills & Attitudes

The PDP should cover (not necessarily at the same time) not just developments in knowledge and skills but also in attitudes or approaches to the role of the GP.

Though some trainees may find it comfortable to prioritise knowledge development, we have to balance our development and include areas of our development in all of these 3 domains – knowledge, skills and attitudes.

  • SMART

The PDP should be formulated so that for most PDP entries there are Specific Measurable Attainable and Realistic objectives which can be achieved with the Timeframe of the training.

Producing SMART objectives makes assessment much more clear and transparent. ‘Improved confidence’ is not measurable either by the trainee or the CS/ES therefore it is not an acceptable outcome. This criterion acknowledges that there may be some more general aims where it is difficult to create SMART outcomes. Where there are general aims it may be appropriate to break the general aim into smaller Objectives for which SMART outcomes can be defined. For most entries on the PDP there are educational advantages in learning to be specific in planning how each objective will be assessed.

  • Demonstration of Outcomes (c.f. Miller’s Pyramid)

The outcomes suggested should reflect a mixture of measurements.Somemay demonstrate‘knows’, or ‘knows how’ whilst others demonstrate ‘can do’ and ‘does’.

It is not possible to assess all development using an on line tool, nor is it realistic to expect an audit of every development made by a trainee, or detailed feedback on everything by the hospital CS.

  • Reviewing and reflecting on the PDP

There should be a review process for all outcomes that have not been achieved 1 year after they were initially written allowing the trainee to re-write the PDP entry or reflect on lack of completion in their log diary (this may need IT development)

There is learning in looking at why certain PDP objectives have not been achieved… and may have been unrealistic. This opportunity is available at appraisal for GPs and the e portfolio PDP should be supporting this reflection on areas that have dropped off the radar allowing them to be reformulated. This reflection could happen through a professional conversation on the learning log.

  • A dynamic PDP that evolves with time

There should be evidence that the PDP is being used as part of the learning process (ticking as completed areas that have been addressed in a timely fashion, and adding new areas identified where these have been identified in collaboration with the ES or CS and the log diary entries have not covered them ).

Though different people will use their PDP in different ways it is appropriate that the ES in their assessor role can expect timely completion of areas that have been put on the PDP and that areas identified from the Log are entered on the PDP (or rapidly in a new log entry) and not lost.

Mike Tompson, APD Yorkshire-Humber Deanery, Nov 2009, with minor modifications by Ramesh Mehay May 2010